This has turned into one of the silliest arguments I've seen in a long while. I've got a solution to the whole thing. Let's drop the book of the month and everybody can read whatever they like.

That's what I plan to do. Just isn't worth it anymore.

I don't think it's silly to get the definition of one of the hardest things to define. A classic books is very hard to define. What the problem has been so far is that the definitions used have been way too narrow and not (IMHO) appropriate. So for me, because of this, the month's with classic are a waste. We should broaden things so it works for more people.

As far as I'm concerned, any further discussion on the subject at this time is pointless. Would I have preferred a Nobel/Pulitzer Prize Winner or another Non-Fiction selection instead of two Classic months? You bet I would. But the majority has spoken, and my side was outvoted nearly two to one. Even if all the "swing" votes (those who voted "Either way is fine with me") were added to our total, we'd still have (as of this writing) only 46% of the vote.

I think it was important that this discussion took place, but now that it's clear that the majority wants two months of classics, I say to those who differ: Let it drop. Two months of classics aren't going to kill anyone, and no one is forced to participate in every month's discussion, although, to be sure, those of us who choose to may just learn something. Those older writers often had great insights into the human condition. There's a reason why the classics have staying power.